Measuring the Benefits of Intercity Passenger Rail: A Study

More documents

Recommendations

Info

travel mode from the alighting station to the passenger’s final destination, taxi or other type of shuttle service also captured a substantial proportion of trips. Non-motorized travel modes accounted for a relatively small share of these trips. Figures also show that for most travel modes, the split between access mode to the station and egress mode to the final destination did not vary between April and July. A substantially higher percentage of travelers accessed the Heartland Flyer via a connecting Amtrak service in July than in April, possibly reflecting longer-distance vacations or other travel during the peak season. Table 5-4 displays a more detailed breakdown of passenger travel mode to and from the station, given by train number. Considering each train separately reveals some interesting results otherwise diluted by the combined percentages. For example, there was a wide discrepancy between the percentage of travelers driving to and from the station, with a much higher proportion of passengers driving to train #821 and from #822 than the reverse. The proportion of passengers traveling from the train to their final destination via local transit was also higher for train #821 than #822. Finally, there was a wide gap between the proportion of travelers on train #821 and #822 that connected to the Heartland Flyer via other Amtrak services. Passengers tended to connect from train #821 to other services and to #822 from these services, likely in Fort Worth. Use of a taxi or shuttle service was higher as an egress travel mode for train #821. Table 5-4: Passenger Travel Mode To/From Rail Station, Percent by Train Number #821 (South) #822 (North) Travel Mode April (To/From) July (To/From) April (To/From) July (To/From) (245/243) (285/282) (187/185) (299/300) Drove and Parked at Station 41/10 49/14 17/32 15/30 Rode with Someone 9/8 7/7 10/15 10/12 Dropped Off/Picked Up 39/30 36/28 34/42 35/47 Local Transit Bus/Van/Trolley 1/10 3/12 6/1 6/1 Commuter Train 0/5 0/4 4/0 4/0 Connecting Amtrak Train/Bus 0/14 0/11 14/1 21/0 Intercity Bus 0/0 0/0 1/1 1/0 Walked 2/9 1/12 12/1 3/4 Bicycle 0/0 0/0 0/1 0/0 Taxi/Shuttle 8/14 4/12 3/8 6/5 Note: Sample size shown in parenthesis. Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 96
Tables 5-5 and 5-6 display another detailed examination of the passenger access and egress mode data, broken out by station, for April and July, respectively. Mode splits by station were generally consistent with the overall mode split and also reflected the number of available modes at each station. Tables 5-5 and 5-6 also indicate that the percentage of passenger pick-up and drop-off was highest in Oklahoma City. Researchers attributed this finding in part to the fact that there was a charge for parking at the Oklahoma City station. Also, a majority of the parking around the Fort Worth Intermodal Transit Center was pay parking as well. Passengers using connecting Amtrak services primarily connected with these services in Fort Worth, although there were a small number of passengers that reported using the Amtrak thruway bus connection in Oklahoma City. The relatively high proportion of passengers using local transit in Gainesville is likely an indication of passengers who utilized the trolley service that connected passengers at the Gainesville station with the local outlet mall. 97
Page 1:
1. Report No. SWUTC/10/169116-1 2.
Page 5:
ABSTRACT In recent years, the polic
Page 8 and 9:
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 3-1: He
Page 11 and 12:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION In i
Page 13 and 14:
ail service along intercity corrido
Page 15 and 16:
planning faces a variety of challen
Page 17 and 18:
of travel (in the absence of rail s
Page 19 and 20:
participate in the study. Throughou
Page 21 and 22:
such as medical appointments or fun
Page 23 and 24:
Heartland Flyer annually. Induced t
Page 25 and 26:
Heartland Flyer identified in this
Page 27:
DISCLAIMER The contents of this rep
Page 31 and 32:
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION In its Dece
Page 33 and 34:
to Fort Worth intercity corridor wa
Page 35:
• An overview of intercity passen
Page 38 and 39:
passenger deficit for the year 1969
Page 40 and 41:
In April 2009, the Federal Railroad
Page 42 and 43:
conditions across the United States
Page 44 and 45:
Table 2-2: State-Supported Routes i
Page 46 and 47:
Oklahoma and Texas support service
Page 48 and 49:
conducted by the Southeastern Wisco
Page 50 and 51:
Discussion of State-Supported Rail
Page 52 and 53:
• The 1993 Illinois Passenger Rai
Page 54 and 55:
INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL PLANNING T
Page 56 and 57:
Data Needs for Intercity Passenger
Page 58 and 59:
supported routes. The following par
Page 60 and 61:
• Third, the total non-business r
Page 62 and 63:
demand model varies, Horowitz and F
Page 64 and 65:
Survey Design Literature Deploying
Page 66 and 67:
Table 2-4: Elements Included in On-
Page 68 and 69:
question. This pattern is consisten
Page 70 and 71:
a particular corridor. For example,
Page 73 and 74:
CHAPTER 3: DESCRIPTION OF HEARTLAND
Page 75 and 76: • After passing through Davis, th
Page 77 and 78: minutes early. A later section of t
Page 79 and 80: corridor. Table 3-1 shows a snapsho
Page 81 and 82: enefits resulting from the route’
Page 83 and 84: state of Oklahoma (71). This action
Page 85 and 86: served by the route are Pauls Valle
Page 87 and 88: Figure 3-4: Typical P42DC Locomotiv
Page 89 and 90: during non-peak times when the usua
Page 91 and 92: effect during this research study w
Page 93 and 94: HEARTLAND FLYER SERVICE DATA The fo
Page 95 and 96: Examining the 10-year monthly avera
Page 97 and 98: surprisingly, is Oklahoma City-Fort
Page 99 and 100: Figure 3-9: Heartland Flyer On-Time
Page 101 and 102: CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION The main
Page 103 and 104: amenities that could increase rail
Page 105 and 106: pool be increased to 3,000. The IRB
Page 107 and 108: Summary of Data Collection Tables 4
Page 109 and 110: Ineligible Passengers Several group
Page 111 and 112: QUALITY CONTROL After completing th
Page 113 and 114: For the access mode to station ques
Page 115 and 116: One question on the survey asked th
Page 117 and 118: trip). However, researchers determi
Page 119 and 120: eporting how far passengers were fr
Page 121 and 122: CHAPTER 5: DATA ANALYSIS This chapt
Page 123 and 124: survey item by the total number of
Page 125: Comparing the total column in Table
Page 129 and 130: Heartland Flyer Market Area Researc
Page 131 and 132: Table 5-9: Passenger Trip Purpose,
Page 133 and 134: PASSENGER CHARACTERISTICS Passenger
Page 135 and 136: is entirely possible that a passeng
Page 137 and 138: In both April and July, the two mos
Page 139 and 140: Table 5-19: Passenger State of Resi
Page 141 and 142: Figure 5-2: Residential Zip Codes o
Page 143 and 144: Gender Table 5-22 reports passenger
Page 145 and 146: Household Income Table 5-26 reports
Page 147 and 148: In FFY 2009, the Heartland Flyer ra
Page 149 and 150: Table 5-28: Passenger Alternatives
Page 151 and 152: Urban and Rural Mobility Another co
Page 153 and 154: passenger was approximately $120 in
Page 155 and 156: if the service did not exist (appro
Page 157: This study measured the mobility im
Page 160 and 161: questions on the passenger’s boar
Page 162 and 163: made is related to the similarity b
Page 164 and 165: valuable insight on the design of f
Page 167 and 168: REFERENCES 1. National Surface Tran
Page 169 and 170: 35. Corey, Canapary & Galanis Resea
Page 171: 74. Able Consulting. Tier 1 Environ
Page 174 and 175: Figure A-3: Purcell Amtrak Station
Page 176 and 177:
Figure A-7: Fort Worth Amtrak Stati
Page 178 and 179:
148
Page 180:
150
show all

Measuring the Benefits of Intercity Passenger Rail: A Study

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?